The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 08:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This describes itself as a science fiction fan society with almost 30 members. It doesn't seem notable to me. Grahame (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only outside listed references do not mention ANZAPA. Article make no claim to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, no evidence of notability. TravellingCari 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Almost" 30 members? No further evidence needed. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Association is already listed more appropriately at Amateur press association. That reference could be expanded if necessary. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And the same argument could be raised for the possible deletion of FAPA; and I doubt if any attempt to remove that apa would succeed. It is the oldest apa still in existence, but it is based in the US. The effect of ANAZPA on Australian fandom is probably comparable to that of FAPA to US fandom. FAPA has a roster of 65 members, in a country with 20 times the population of Australia. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. If this were 100 times bigger it would still be non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "almost" thirty members? I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this group, so believe they do not meet the notability guideline. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Retain, at any one time this amateur press association will have thirty members but as it has been in continual existence for 40 years the total number of members is, by now, in the hundreds. It was instrumental in energising, and then maintaining, an interest in Australian science fiction fandom which resulted in the hosting of the four World Science Ficton conventions in Australia, in 1975, 1985, 1999 and now 2010. Yes, I agree that it does require further work and feel that it can be improved over the coming weeks. Amateur Press Associations were pre-cursors of Bulletin Boards, email list and weblogs. The fact that this is the major such body in Australia makes it particularly noteable in my view. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Few bulletin boards, email list or weblogs are notable.--Grahame (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Few" implies that some are. And I'm sure that the "concept" of them is important. The way that apas helped sf fans communicate within Australia and overseas is an important part of the development of sf fandom in this country. In order to explain later events, earlier ones need to be present. Yes, the logical links need to be there but if ANZAPA is deleted you lose a vital link in the chain that runs from the Sydney Futurians in the 1930s and 1940s right through to the Worldcons of 1999 and 2010; which I can personally attest to.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "'Few implies that some are" doesn't mean yours is. JuJube (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that's what we have to determine. And, by the way, neither this page, nor this apa, is mine. Whatever that means. I just have a interest in this subject, have some knowledge of it and believe it has a level of importance to a certain area of activity within the science fiction fandom field. I don't see that leaving it as it is, with the knowledge that it will be expanded in the weeks ahead, affects anything. There were a number of apas within Australia in the 1970s and 1980s yet this is the only one of them that is represented on Wikipedia. It's easy to say something is not noteable - I think half the pages on Wikipedia that deal with film and television actors are not noteable. But someone else does, else they would not have created the page in the first place. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. JuJube (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, this organisation has been extremely important in the history of science fiction in Australia. If Australian sf fandom is notable, and if amateur press associations are individually notable, then ANZAPA is clearly notable. If one followed the same logic as given above, ALL individual apa entries should be deleted, including Aotearapa, the British Amateur Press Association, FAPA, and several others. ANZAPA may currently only have 30 members, but over the last four decades it has had several hundred members, many of whom have gone on to become award-winning fanzine publishers and authors. It has had a huge influence on the development of Australian fan writing and science fiction writing and it provided the basis for the the three World Science Fiction Conventions which have been held in Australia. --Drgrigg (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current membership may be small but notability is not temporary and the 40 year history and wide-reaching impact speak far more strongly than any number of current membership. "Current membership" in the Arizona Diamondbacks active roster was less than 30 a month ago and yet I hear no cries for the deletion of any MLB team articles. (I know it's an odd comparison but my point is that "current membership" is generally a terrible reason for deletion.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the other half of the nomination? "It doesn't seem notable to me." Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with a statement like "It doesn't seem notable to me" is that it is impossible to argue against. Basically it's saying: "I've never heard of it so it means nothing". Which is fair enough. But this is like my daughter mentioning certain celebrities to me and I come back with: "Never heard of them." Does that automatically make them non-notable? Not necessarily to the world at large. We now have some 10 references, one book reference, 5 or 6 external links, and links to 6 or 7 other Wikipedia pages for ANZAPA members. The links seem to implying it's of some importance. There are many pages on Wikipedia with far less. I haven't seen an argument yet against the comparison with FAPA, or the other apas mentioned? And placing ANZAPA in context, I repeat that it has had a similar effect on sf in Australia to the effect FAPA had on US sf. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is established through reliable sources writing about the subject. I am unable to find any such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Those references ain't reliable. The authors need to demonstrate significant independent coverage. They haven't.--Lester 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.